brewster wrote:You know my fantasy is to turn Summit into an exclusive Bus Rapid Transit Lane between Journal Square and Port Authority. It would be dirt cheap compared to light rail. Combine that with loosened zoning, and the Heights would take off like rocket. But it will never happen because......... PARKING!!!

That's brilliant! Bus is such an overlooked, underutilized and insanely cheap (relative to rail) and versatile option. Also much more easily adaptable to changing needs in the future.

MDM wrote:.As covered in other threads, the Heights is a bit of a transportation desert (buses get caught in traffic too often).

You know my fantasy is to turn Summit into an exclusive Bus Rapid Transit Lane between Journal Square and Port Authority. It would be dirt cheap compared to light rail. Combine that with loosened zoning, and the Heights would take off like rocket. But it will never happen because......... PARKING!!!

JCGuys wrote:Those affordable housing advocates do a piss poor job, too. In addition to increasing density, relaxing parking requirements is one way to bring the cost down for development.

I would love to see some major R-3/R-4 projects that would involve the expansion of the light rail to the Heights and beyond.

As covered in other threads, the Heights is a bit of a transportation desert (buses get caught in traffic too often). A number of my tenants don't bother having a car since they take PATH, light rail, buses to work.

JCGuys wrote:Too much development? I say we're not building enough! We could double the new housing supply if instead of 2-unit Bayonnye Boxes we build 4-unit townhomes.

But but but PARKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When did locking a city in amber to never change become the job of government?

The parking crusade obsession of some old timers and (seemingly every) neighborhood association is really holding back so much of JC. The Neighborhood Associations have an outside influence in city policies and they squander that, which could be such a great asset, in obsessing over parking and how to hoard it for the old timers. A true shame.

And this is why myself and I think many others are going to hold our noses and vote for Fulop's slate. Smart cities are building, building, building right now. All housing is essentially a supply/demand issue.

The non-Fulop council candidates, no matter how you cut it, represent the Yvonne/NA interests in rolling Jersey City back to 1985 and preserving parking and low taxes for multi-millionaires like the fat slob Yvonne.

Those affordable housing advocates do a piss poor job, too. In addition to increasing density, relaxing parking requirements is one way to bring the cost down for development. Instead, they miss the big picture and want nothing but 100% subsidized housing built from the government, which is rarely going to happen and not even a good thing if it does because it creates a concentration of poverty.

So plenty of blame to go all around. Not just the self-centered neighborhood associations. You small developers are the best hope to bringing affordable housing.

We seldom agree on anything, but on this we are 100% in agreement: once you start down the slippery slope of housing price controls, why stop there? This idea we can limit a market-driven system by screwing over someone in favor of another is completely bonkers, definitely reminiscent of dictatorial faux-populist regimes such as Venezuela, and the former USSR.

Chile in the early '70s under the Allende regime is a good example. Allende decided to "help the poor" by ordering all businesses to cut their prices. If you didn't, your business was nationalized.

Years ago I worked with a guy who's family business (a pharmacy) was seized by the regime for not following the price controls. The business was returned once Pinochet came to power.

There were shortages of everything. I read first hand accounts of people trying to trade a house for a working car due to a shortage of auto parts... let alone new vehicles.

JCGuys wrote:Too much development? I say we're not building enough! We could double the new housing supply if instead of 2-unit Bayonnye Boxes we build 4-unit townhomes.

But but but PARKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When did locking a city in amber to never change become the job of government?

The parking crusade obsession of some old timers and (seemingly every) neighborhood association is really holding back so much of JC. The Neighborhood Associations have an outside influence in city policies and they squander that, which could be such a great asset, in obsessing over parking and how to hoard it for the old timers. A true shame.

hero69 wrote:If matsikoudis wants more affordable housing, the city should build more affordable housing, instead if advocating confiscatory policies. He should have a look at Venezuela, the old Soviet Union....why not have price controls on food or car sales?

We seldom agree on anything, but on this we are 100% in agreement: once you start down the slippery slope of housing price controls, why stop there? This idea we can limit a market-driven system by screwing over someone in favor of another is completely bonkers, definitely reminiscent of dictatorial faux-populist regimes such as Venezuela, and the former USSR.

Yvonne wrote:Perhaps Fulop's campaign, "Make Jersey City Yours" was too successful and New Yorkers are here driving up the prices.

Correct. But what's the solution? We reverse redline Jersey City to prevent ex-NYC residents from coming in?

I do believe Jersey City is a better place than it was 5 or 10 years ago, thanks in no small part of the new residents making Jersey City home and the investment dollars they bring. However, where we are failing miserably is the need for more middle class housing.

Fulop should not have run the ad campaign to promote Jersey City unless he is willing to take the necessary steps to greatly increase the housing supply for all incomes. Otherwise, it just screws over existing renters... which maybe was the plan all along: gentrification and displacement. The only solution is far more housing and the best way to meet the demand is through allowing 4-unit townhomes in R1 and other small scale intensification in underutilized areas of the city.

I swaer some politicans would rather keep Jersey City poor and ghetto with class warfare rather than bringing everyone up and improving lives.

Too much development? I say we're not building enough! We could double the new housing supply if instead of 2-unit Bayonnye Boxes we build 4-unit townhomes. A homeowner would be able to occupy one of the units and the other 3 units would be rental income to help with the mortgage. That would add new 3 and 4 bedroom rental units probably renting in an affordable $1,500 to $2,000 range. The city can focus homebuyer assistance programs to encourage existing residents to purchase these new townhomes.

Right now most new supply is luxury. We need to make it easier to build so smaller scale developers can create workforce housing. Too wealthy for Section 8 but too poor to afford the luxury development.

The city's new 80\20 affordable housing program is only for a small segment of the population. It's not for the middle class.

hero69 wrote:If matsikoudis wants more affordable housing, the city should build more affordable housing, instead if advocating confiscatory policies. He should have a look at Venezuela, the old Soviet Union....why not have price controls on food or car sales?

Good question about price controls of other items, but currently those are not overheated. What about this: Why does government think mandating prices for private housing is OK if it's gotten too expensive, but controlling astronomical private college tuition is untouchable?

It comes down to this: take away control of some people's private businesses, or jeopardize other people's street parking by allowing more density and thus more housing to stabilize the market. Clearly the 1st can get him more votes.

If matsikoudis wants more affordable housing, the city should build more affordable housing, instead if advocating confiscatory policies. He should have a look at Venezuela, the old Soviet Union....why not have price controls on food or car sales?

The rent control laws got revised in October 1985 by the late Councilman Buddy Brooks. He lived in St. John's apt and was having a dispute with the Bob Sachs, who managed the property. Basically, tax, water, and other increases were passed on the landlord but not to the tenant. The tenant was governed by the city's increases which ranged from 1% to 4%. Landlords could always appealed through hardships but instead many buildings became condos. I still remember some councilmen voting for this but was worry it would have an impact downt he road. Yes, they were correct. Rent controlled apartments today only pertained to 5 units. The change would be apartments less than five units. The real problem- the city eliminated rent control for new construction so LeFrak would build his towers. LeFrac asked for that ordinance, he did not ask for tax abatements as stated by many. I believe the elimination is for 99 years for new construction.

I am not a big fan with the current rent control laws. The more I learn about it the more I don’t like it. For example, you cannot charge more than $35 late fee (even if your lease says $50). $35 is not much of a deterrent to get your tenant to pay on time. This in turn doesn’t help the landlord paying their mortgage on time. If you have to take your tenant to court for nonpayment, you cannot charge them “attorney fees” (even if your lease says you can). In New York, your rent controlled apartment needs to be your primary residence. In Jersey City, a person paying $400 rent can keep the apartment and not technically live there. These tenants take advantage and find ways to make money off the apartment (like Airbnb). The Jersey City Housing inspectors are also only for the tenants. They can send a landlord a violation if a tenant has a small crack on the wall, however, if a tenant has 2 space heaters plugged into a flimsy extension cord (clearly a fire hazard) they would do absolutely nothing. Good luck taking them to court, the Judge will almost always favor the tenant.

It sounds like Bill M. wants to revise the rent control laws to continue to only favor the tenants. To make matters worse, he wants to spread it to those who own property below 5 units. That is not cool. I would rather someone revise rent control from both a landlord and tenant perspective and understand the full picture.

And we too agree about the evilness of rent control. But your spreading misinformation about taxes has got to stop. You have no excuse for continued ignorance about the valuation of commercial property being by cap rate not comps. And that applies to ALL commercial, not just rent control. A 2 family with a store is valued the same way. We all know that if all housing was priced relative to what it would rent for, prices would be nowhere near the height they are.

brewster wrote:Thinking more about this, I bet it would have the exact opposite effect of what he'd like. If you control the rents of small buildings I bet tons of owners would say fuck it, condo them and sell them off, dramatically reducing the number of rentals.

Rent control is a "zombie idea" that won't die just like supply-side economics, cuz people like to vote their wallets no matter how much evidence there is that it's a failure.

Exactly! Rent control has outlived its usefulness and ends up harming the bulk of the population in non-rent controlled buildings. It cuts off a certain supply of housing from the free market and consequently all the other housing out there is that much more expensive. It kills any incentive for would-be developers to build middle-market housing. The only new rental housing that ever gets built in New York City are the super-high end luxury buildings with rents of $3500 per month or more, which are not subject to rent control or stabilization. Boston and Cambridge ended rent control - and when it ended, investment in housing and repairs went up. While many people left their formerly cheap apartments, most stayed in them, and Boston's first middle market apartment building in over 50 years was built.

Nor do I understand the concept of the below market rent apartments for artists... but not knowing a whole lot about that in the first place (in Jersey City or elsewhere), I will not venture my opinion on that.

You must be a fun person to live with your negative remarks. However, I was around in 1988 and I help collect data for then the Coalition of Fair Taxation, a community group fighting the revaluation. Rent control does not relate to income, I met many 6 figure people living in rent control buildings downtown. It enable them to buy their boat or house at the shore. Taxes are about fairness and the services we all enjoy. It is ridiculous for an one family to pay the freight of a multi-family building.

I think you quoted the wrong post, Yvonne. I didn't say you had Alzheimers, and it seems like we generally agree on the concept of rent control.

brewster wrote:Thinking more about this, I bet it would have the exact opposite effect of what he'd like. If you control the rents of small buildings I bet tons of owners would say fuck it, condo them and sell them off, dramatically reducing the number of rentals.

Rent control is a "zombie idea" that won't die just like supply-side economics, cuz people like to vote their wallets no matter how much evidence there is that it's a failure.

Exactly! Rent control has outlived its usefulness and ends up harming the bulk of the population in non-rent controlled buildings. It cuts off a certain supply of housing from the free market and consequently all the other housing out there is that much more expensive. It kills any incentive for would-be developers to build middle-market housing. The only new rental housing that ever gets built in New York City are the super-high end luxury buildings with rents of $3500 per month or more, which are not subject to rent control or stabilization. Boston and Cambridge ended rent control - and when it ended, investment in housing and repairs went up. While many people left their formerly cheap apartments, most stayed in them, and Boston's first middle market apartment building in over 50 years was built.

Nor do I understand the concept of the below market rent apartments for artists... but not knowing a whole lot about that in the first place (in Jersey City or elsewhere), I will not venture my opinion on that.

You must be a fun person to live with your negative remarks. However, I was around in 1988 and I help collect data for then the Coalition of Fair Taxation, a community group fighting the revaluation. Rent control does not relate to income, I met many 6 figure people living in rent control buildings downtown. It enable them to buy their boat or house at the shore. Taxes are about fairness and the services we all enjoy. It is ridiculous for an one family to pay the freight of a multi-family building.

brewster wrote:This explains why a rent controlled building with low rents would not be affected by a boom in the market for condos and smaller buildings.

This also explains why they're so appealing to buy cheap, bully or buy out the tenants and convert to condos, removing rentals from the market.

I turned a 5 unit building into a 4 since Condo wasn't an option. The apartments are huge.. I would have rather turned this into a 6 unit with smaller, less expensive units (easier to rent). Rent control + R-1 made that impossible.

Yvonne wrote:When the 1988 revaluation happened multi-family buildings received low assessments and low taxes. I remember a 6 family house on Mercer a $3,000 tax bill and the one family next door with $9,000. The one family homes including condos today will end up paying a higher proportion of taxes.

Seriously, do you have Alzheimer's? Because this has been explained to you numerous times. Properties over 4 units are NOT appraised by comps, but by income and their cap rate, how profitable they are. This explains why a rent controlled building with low rents would not be affected by a boom in the market for condos and smaller buildings.

This also explains why they're so appealing to buy cheap, bully or buy out the tenants and convert to condos, removing rentals from the market.

I think if owners of 2 and three family houses, especially those that were converted brownstones, were suddenly subject to rent control, they would convert them back to one families and sell them. Or sell them to buyers who are interested in converting them back to one families. Since I purchased my three family brownstone 16 years ago, I've anecdotally observed that more and more of the new buyers of these multi unit brownstones have been converting them back to one families and raising their families in them.

Quote:

brewster wrote:Thinking more about this, I bet it would have the exact opposite effect of what he'd like. If you control the rents of small buildings I bet tons of owners would say fuck it, condo them and sell them off, dramatically reducing the number of rentals.

Rent control is a "zombie idea" that won't die just like supply-side economics, cuz people like to vote their wallets no matter how much evidence there is that it's a failure.

When the 1988 revaluation happened multi-family buildings received low assessments and low taxes. I remember a 6 family house on Mercer a $3,000 tax bill and the one family next door with $9,000. The one family homes including condos today will end up paying a higher proportion of taxes.

brewster wrote:Thinking more about this, I bet it would have the exact opposite effect of what he'd like. If you control the rents of small buildings I bet tons of owners would say fuck it, condo them and sell them off, dramatically reducing the number of rentals.

Rent control is a "zombie idea" that won't die just like supply-side economics, cuz people like to vote their wallets no matter how much evidence there is that it's a failure.

Exactly! Rent control has outlived its usefulness and ends up harming the bulk of the population in non-rent controlled buildings. It cuts off a certain supply of housing from the free market and consequently all the other housing out there is that much more expensive. It kills any incentive for would-be developers to build middle-market housing. The only new rental housing that ever gets built in New York City are the super-high end luxury buildings with rents of $3500 per month or more, which are not subject to rent control or stabilization. Boston and Cambridge ended rent control - and when it ended, investment in housing and repairs went up. While many people left their formerly cheap apartments, most stayed in them, and Boston's first middle market apartment building in over 50 years was built.

Nor do I understand the concept of the below market rent apartments for artists... but not knowing a whole lot about that in the first place (in Jersey City or elsewhere), I will not venture my opinion on that.

Thinking more about this, I bet it would have the exact opposite effect of what he'd like. If you control the rents of small buildings I bet tons of owners would say fuck it, condo them and sell them off, dramatically reducing the number of rentals.

Rent control is a "zombie idea" that won't die just like supply-side economics, cuz people like to vote their wallets no matter how much evidence there is that it's a failure.

There is a bit of difference between 25% or 50% increase used as an argument and the low single digit proposed rate for regulated increase. I am one of the landlords talked about by neverleft. Small building, very good deal to my tenants, we are close to friends at this point. Yet if my taxes shoot way up, I will have to increase them and it may be 5% for a number of years. I also signed on BM signature paperwork for election. In insight, I wish I could have used it as toilet paper.